Andhra Pradesh Court June 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pendekanti Subbarayudu Vs. Bysani Venkatanarasayya and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1968AP61
1. In this batch of appeals, the short point that falls for determination is whether the defendant appellant prosecuted the respondents maliciously and without probable and reasonable cause. Both the Courts on the evidence have held that the defendant-appellant prosecuted the plaintiff-respondents without any reasonable or probable cause.2. Shri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant conceded that the conclusions of both the Courts on the evidence is correct, but contended that the entire approach by the Courts below is wrong inasmuch as they placed the burden on the defendant-appellant when as a matter of fact the burden is always on the plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution to prove that the defendant had no reasonable or probable cause for the prosecution. I do not find any force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.3. It is no doubt true that ordinarily the onus of establishing that the defendant had no reasonable and pr...
P. Vs. G. Raju, Rajah of Vizianagaram V. Commissioner of Income-tax, A ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-14-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR122(AP)
(13-3-1964)KUMARAYYA J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, has referred for decision the following questions of law arising out of their order in I. T. As. Nos. 550 and 551 of 1960-61.'1. Whether the income from the market properties is assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 10 of the Income-tax Act and2. Whether the income from the building called fort is agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act and accordingly exempt ?'The assessee is the Rajah of Vizianagaram and a big landlord. As the sole owner of the income of an impartible estate he was being assessed to income-tax as an individual. Even after the Estates Abolition Act, the assessment was being completed in the same status. The main source of his income is from house properties, interest on securities, dividends, etc. He owns amongst others a market and a fort. For the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, for which the accounting years are the years endi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›